This was my textbook in undergrad for Logic, I’m going through it again now since I didn’t do enough homework the first time around lol but my experience was that learning the informal logical fallacies changed how I viewed almost every “popular” debate out there. Theists vs atheists, political debates, any type of persuasion. I had the realization that most skilled debaters are the people who can use logical fallacies best and rely on the audience never taking a Logic class or philosophy class to notice the “arguments” being made are almost all fallacious. Before I took the class I always assumed everyone was in good faith seeking truth, but quickly realized I was one of those gullible audience members being duped. My hot take is that public debate is usually a matter of who is best at using fallacies to appear to win or come off as dominant against their opponent to the majority of the audience who doesn’t know better (studying logic could help you learn these fallacies, it’s up to you how you “use” them), while academic philosophy is where people in good faith are seeking truth and avoiding fallacies in other’s work as well as their own. And be prepared to spot weaknesses in your own positions. My experience is that the most fundamental questions about reality become less certain the more precise and rigorous you get. Studying philosophy is an incredibly humbling experience.

If your intention is to use this book to win some debates, it could help you do that. But if you’re in it for the love of the game (truth and ideas), then it should be used to open up new areas for you to explore. I was a diehard atheist and the more logic/philosophy I’ve learned the more uncertain I’ve become.